Comments on: Racine County Wi-Fi: providing access where it’s really needed

By: Esme Vos

Esme Vos — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:45:55 +0000

$150 is not affordable at all. $20 to $30 per month is better but only if the bandwidth is quite substantial. In some parts of rural France you can get 30 EUR per month broadband service that gives you 20 to 30 Mbps symmetrical. FTTH is being rolled out in non-urban locations in Europe.

By: Jay Jung

Jay Jung — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 20:02:49 +0000

Yes, that sounds very intriguing.

Don’t you agree that the service should be more affordable than $150 per month?

By: Esme Vos

Esme Vos — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 01:47:10 +0000

I also wondered about how broadband can help farmers (not just certain business sectors) until I attended a European Union conference on bridging the broadband gap in May 2007 in Brussels. The EU’s broadband policy isn’t a standalone police, i.e. broadband for its sake alone. Rather, it is intertwined with an agricultural policy aimed at allowing farmers to share information in real time and to educate one another. They have created “agri-universities” in certain areas where farmers actually create and lead courses on various subjects in which they have expertise, for example, crop rotation, getting rid of pests, irrigation, and yes, even how to market certain types of organic products. With broadband, the farmers create their own content online and share it with others who view it also from distant locations. I think it’s a very intriguing way of organizing “learning” i.e. outside the universities and institutes. People teach one another and share information and broadband in rural areas is necessary in order for this to happen.

By: Jay Jung

Jay Jung — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:07:35 +0000

I agree the editorial in general. Even if it may be considered as civil infrastructure projects, service should be affordable for middle-class families. I’d like to see more state goverment involvement in this type of projects. Unless providing free access for rural residents (most likely blue collar families/farmers/middle class folks) or requiring the providers to provide free access, what goal we would accomplish at this point of economy recess? Certainly it will benefit certain business sectors but more meat and potato to the kitchen table wouldn’t be the idea in terms of practicality?

In simple words, a golden, splendid bridge is about to be built but if commuters in need have to pay $150 each and every month, then what’s the point?

By: Esme Vos

Esme Vos — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:11:52 +0000

What I like about the Racine County project is that the county is focused and it’s targeting the rollout of broadband service where it’s needed most. If you are trying to do so many things are the same time, you won’t succeed in any of them.

I’ve been running Muniwireless since 2003 and it’s the ones who keep it simple (in terms of their goals) that succeed.

There are still so many rural areas in the US that desperately need broadband: the infrastructure (fiber, wireless) and the services. Racine County is trying to do its best to fulfill the demand for broadband.

By: Craig Plunkett

Craig Plunkett — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:46:59 +0000

Now that’s a model for a sustainable business. You can’t hammer the new ISP for the mounting asset rental, and the ISP is probably going to provide some point to point backhaul for the county facilities, so its revenue neutral to the county, and it doesn’t kill the nascent ISP. Sensible people, most midwesterners are. Wish we had more of that on the east coast.